Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Monday, June 30, 2014

We frequently see how evolutionary scientists are amazed and annoyed because the facts do not comport with their presuppositions. In addition, we also see that they tweak, ignore, deny and make up wild stories to force-fit observed evidence into their evolutionary worldview. This does not work. In reality, the evidence fits the biblical creationist models.

Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams have fun providing so many examples of evolutionists (chemical, stellar, biological) being jaw-dropping surprised, shocked, even stunned and horrified, when their huge discoveries contradict some of the most fundamental predictions of their materialist theories.

You can read the write-up and listen to the audio at "RSR's List of Shocked Evolutionists". Also, you may like the parody of Kanye West's "Gold Digger", which is "Bone Digger" by ApologetiX, at the bottom of this page.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, June 28, 2014

If you listen to Darwin's Cheerleaders, belief in the Bible (especially a recent, six-day creation) is the domain of the mentally incompetent or scam artists. However, there are actually many scientists, past and present, who reject evolution and accept Genesis as literal history. In addition, there are many non-scientists who believe the Bible as well; scoffing does not equal intellectual superiority — or truth.

NASA/JPL-Caltech

Astronomy and astrophysics are disciplines that one would consider "off limits" to creationists, especially with black holes, huge distances and so forth. Not hardly. Some are able to cast off "deep time" presuppositions, believe the Bible and also be productive in their fields. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati had a discussion with Dr. Markus Blietz about such things.

After progressing through the rigorous German schooling, Markus eventually specialized in astrophysics. In particular, he explains:

“My Ph.D. work was about a special class of galaxy called Seyfert galaxies. These contain active galactic nuclei—very bright, star-like centres. The most common explanation is a gigantic black hole in the centre of these galaxies.”

Dr Blietz explained how a black hole is predicted by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity if an unimaginable amount of mass accumulates in a very small space. E.g. the sun (mass 2 × 1030 kg) would need to be compressed into only 6 km (4 miles) diameter. But the centres of the galaxies are proposed to be supermassive black holes. These would be up to 100 million times the sun’s mass, concentrated in a volume with a diameter smaller than the distance from Earth to the moon (384,000 km / 239,000 miles).

Friday, June 27, 2014

When reading or listening to evolutionists, some of the metaphysical elements of their worldview becomes apparent. Evolution itself is often spoken of as if it was an entity, with volition to select and even direct the changes in organisms. This is a form of pantheism. Evolution is not a being or a force. (There is only one Creator, and evolution was not his method of creation.) Nor can any creature decide to evolve another feature — or evolve itself into something else.

No animal can plan ahead how it will evolve, so why do some evolutionists talk like they do?

“500-million-year-old creature was on the way to evolving jaws,” Sid Perkins titled his short article in Science Magazine, accompanied by an artist’s conception of “one of the world’s oldest known vertebrates”—a Cambrian creature named Metaspriggina from Canada. The thumb-sized swimming creature possessed “eyes, muscle groups and the support for gills,” the article says; the upward-pointing eyes were “large and prominent.” Moreover, “A small but sharp-edged circular area in each eye hints that the eyes of these ancient fish included a lens, a relatively modern feature for its era.”

Thursday, June 26, 2014

The debate has raged for decades whether or not dinosaurs are warm-blooded or cold-blooded. They had to be cold-blooded because they were just overgrown, terrible lizards, yes? However, since an ancestor for bird evolution could not be found, dinosaurs were nominated as candidates for the bird ancestor position and given the status of warm-blooded.

Dino-to-bird evolution is the dominant viewpoint for evolutionary scientists, but it is not unanimous. There are problems with it, including the fact that dinosaurs ate birds, and dinosaur fossils have been found with modern birds, so those facts should destroy the "theory" right there. Evolutionists get desperate to deny the Creator, and give evolution undeserved credit for all sorts of change, further reducing origins science to absurdity.There is hope in the dino-to-bird camp. New studies indicate that instead of either/or regarding dinosaur warm- or cold-bloodedness, it may be neither/nor. Unfortunately (and despite speculations that sound like scientific facts), scientists are attempting to make the evidence fit their presuppositions; there were no dinosaurs stepping forward to discuss matters and set the record straight.

It makes more sense to admit that the evidence supports a recent creation, and not millions of years of evolution.

Were dinosaurs cold-blooded or warm-blooded? Debate has raged for decades. The latest answer: neither. They were probably in between.“Our results showed that dinosaurs had growth and metabolic rates that were actually not characteristic of warm-blooded or even cold-blooded organisms,” explains University of Arizona evolutionary biologist and ecologist Brian Enquist. “They did not act like mammals or birds nor did they act like reptiles or fish. Instead, they had growth rates and metabolisms intermediate to warm-blooded and cold-blooded organisms of today. In short, they had physiologies that are not common in today's world.”

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

The overriding viewpoint for evolutionary geology is uniformitarianism; the present is the key to the past. Geologic processes are observed and measured in the present, and then the assumption is that these rates have been the same throughout geologic history. However, not only do these conflict with biblical creationist models on the age of the earth, but they even contradict the expectations of secular scientists.

Pixabay/WikiImages

Problems down south. Antarctic ice has been rising and falling at rates that are far too rapid for evolutionary assumptions. Worse for them, the rates are not constant. This is problematic for uniformitarian geology, but not for young earth creationists.

Land is not supposed to rise this fast. Generations of geologists have been trained to think in terms of slow and steady processes to explain Earth features. New results show that the continental crust underlying Antarctica is rising rapidly as parts of its massive ice sheet have been melting away. This unexpected bounce might help better position the timing of similar effects that occurred in northern North America near the close of the Ice Age.Since 1995, entire ice shelves the size of cities have been falling from the Northern Antarctic Peninsula into the sea. The land below that ice has been moving up to elevations where only ice once lay.A European team used satellites to track Antarctica's up-and-down motion, publishing their results in Earth and Planetary Science Letters. A Newcastle University press release said, "the land in this region is actually rising at a phenomenal rate of 15mm a year—much greater than can be accounted for by the present-day elastic response alone." The team investigated reasons why it has been rising so quickly.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

When NASA sent the Cassini spacecraft to Titan (the largest moon of Saturn), certain things were expected to be found based on their ancient universe and evolutionary presuppositions. Titan was baffling already, because it has a dense atmosphere, which was a puzzler right there.

Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Worse for secular scientists, Titan was recalcitrant by acting decidedly young. With Cassini using radar and other instruments to map its surface, tellers of cosmology tales are in high gear finding truly remarkable "explanations" to force Titan into pretending to be old. It makes more sense to admit that the ancient universe paradigm is wrong and that the data fits a young universe.

As the Cassini orbiter makes its 103rd close pass by Titan, have long-agers found ways to keep it billions of years old?Space.com announced the 103rd flyby of Titan by Cassini, and it’s a daring one: just 2,274 miles above the surface at 13,000 miles per hour; PhysOrg announced the next day that it was successful. With about 40% of the surface mapped by radar and other instruments, enough should be known by now to explain its youthful appearance in terms of the assumed age of the solar system (4.5 billion years).Astrobiology Magazine reported that JPL chemists are getting closer to reproducing Titan’s peculiar smog, but the fit isn’t perfect yet. That article did not address the age conundrum: how long can Titan’s atmosphere create these complex molecules, and are they reversible?Jeff Hecht at New Scientist was the only reporter recently to address the age question. First, he laid out the problem:

Monday, June 23, 2014

Evolution has been an excuse to deny God and help atheists pretend that they are "intellectually fulfilled". There are other people who are seeking to have faith in God, but the presentations of evolution as a fact cause them doubt and confusion. It is not surprising, since people are not trained in critical thinking, but blind obedience. Society has come to the religion of Scientism, elevating science and making scientists its priests. Further, evolutionists present their beliefs in slick packages with great storytelling. Of course, they leave out facts that controvert their presentations.When people actually examine the evidence, they will see that evolution does not have a leg to stand on or a tail by which to swing. The evidence supports what the Bible says, and it also supports biblical creation science. A letter to CMI and the response by a former atheist is presented.

I watched David Attenborough’s Rise of Animals today. Although I cannot accept life from zero, it seems hard to reconcile the fossils and skeletal forms that have been collected from around the world. Certainly, it makes the Adam and Eve story seem a pleasant story for simple folk. Can Christianity really adhere to a young earth when fossil records, notwithstanding C14 problems, show the earth to be many times older? Cosmology is at odds here as well.

Sunday, June 22, 2014

One major part of The Question Evolution Project is to be an information resource. Here is (to use the technical term) a bunch.

Bill Nye the "That Guy" Guy (who seems to have a new way to refer to Ken "There is a Book" Ham) is so committed to materialism and evolutionism that was condescending, and he resorted to misrepresentation, false assertions and even blatant untruths to convince people to believe in his point of view during the famous debate with Ken Ham. (Can you say, "Liar for Darwin"?) The debate prompted some people to think for themselves instead of drinking the Dar-wine, and they are investigating what creationists actually believe and teach.Unfortunately, there are people look up to Nye as a great scientist despite his disingenuous presentations, bad reasoning, anti-Christian bias, refusal to answer questions or examine evidence, and speaking beyond his limited areas of qualification. They parrot his statements and outdated "arguments" in their attacks on creationists (many of which have been linked to from here). People who know how to think critically and examine the evidence for themselves should train themselves to say, "Wait a minute!" when people like this will make assertions.For instance, "annual tree rings". Wait a minute. Are they really annual, one ring per year? That is not a consistent event because during proper conditions, trees may skip a year or produce several rings in one year. Or a slide of skulls presented as evidence for evolution, "no gorilla skulls" there. Wait a minute. That went by so fast, what are they really? Not gorillas, but not human, either. And definitely not evidence for evolution. A huge ship was built that sank. Wait a minute. One ship that sank, after it had been in use for fourteen years (a fact he conveniently omitted) somehow disproves Noah's Ark? Don't let people slip things by to trick or intimidate you that they are evidence for evolution or evidence against the Bible.Here are several items to answer Bill Nye. People should try to put aside their evolutionary presuppositions and actually consider the material.First, a series of radio programs (free to listen and download). After you hear the first one, you may want to skip the opening minute in the following episodes since they are pretty much the same introduction:

Of course, fifteen-minute radio episodes can only address a limited amount of information. So the nice people at Answers In Genesis have provided a number of articles (several of them are technical) on these subjects. You can find the wealth of information at "Debate Answers". This is an exciting time to be a creationist, the evidence is on our side — and there is a great deal of it.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, June 21, 2014

It's a bit distracting to be writing this while the cat is snoring. I should record it, people won't believe the log-sawing.

Creationists keep pointing out that there are fossils out of order according to the geologic column, and Darwin's Cheerleaders come up with various rescuing devices to keep from discarding it. Similarly, there are things that just do not belong according to archaeology, history and so on. Rather than admitting that evolution has been refuted seven ways from sundown, people will resort to speculating that ancient space aliens are the answer, or simply cover up the many anti-evolution smoking guns.Spend a half an hour on this video by Ian Juby for "Genesis Week" and see some information about artifacts that fluster evolutionists. They really should abandon their "theory", the evidence supports the biblical creation model far better than their conjectures. ADDENDUM: A three-part article on OOParts can be found at the bottom of this list of evolutionary frauds.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, June 20, 2014

It seems to be happening with increasing frequency that the more scientists discover, the more there is to learn. Regarding DNA and the human genome, some of the surprises are because of the presuppositions of evolutionists (and yes, "evolutionist" is a word, even though some of them do not like it). Since part of the genome was not understood, it was presumed "junk" and not studied properly. That specter has come back to haunt them repeatedly. In this case, hundreds of proteins have been identified, and they were in areas called "junk". Using a creationist paradigm (and yes, "creationist" is a word, but creationists do not seem to object to it) believing that God created amazingly complex things and we should discover what makes them tick, perhaps there would not be so many surprises.

Once again the oft-repeated phrase "More complex than previously thought" has been used to describe new research cataloguing thousands of proteins produced from the human genome. This groundbreaking biotech news is undergirded by two recent papers published in the journal Nature that describe what has been called the first rough draft of the human proteome.

Unlike DNA sequencing, the extraction, isolation, and identification of proteins is no easy task. To be able to characterize the large diversity of proteins in different tissues, the technologies and chemistries need to be diverse and complex. Nevertheless, technological progress and new instrumentation has advanced to where this can be realized on a much larger scale.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

This post has two featured articles on a related topic from the same source. Give a listen to the music at the end of this post, too.First, secular "peer review" process has some serious flaws, especially regarding origins science. Creationists often receive glib comments of the woefully uninformed that resemble: "Get your creationist nonsense peer reviewed and then maybe I'll read it". Although creationists do have peer review, people making comments like that are implying that creationists should subject their material refuting evolution to the secular process.

Picture furnished by Michelle Studer

Peer review is a good idea and many people work hard to keep up the standards, however, it is time-consuming and expensive. But there is also bad science, recalled papers, bias and fraud — especially when trying to prove evolution with the sacred cow of peer review. The first featured article discusses that some are saying that peer review as we know it is more trouble than it's worth, and should be scrapped.

It has been a criterion of science, but peer review is loaded with problems and probably should be replaced.Two UK professors, writing in The Conversation, ask: if Einstein didn’t need or like peer review, why should we? In many debates about the defining criteria of science, peer review is held up as a prerequisite. But science got by just fine without it for centuries. It’s a relatively recent invention, say Andre Spicer and Thomas Roulet in their essay.

You can finish reading "Scientists Want to Toss Peer Review". We'll wait for you to come back for the second featured article, below.Glad you made it back. The second article points out that scientists are people (like we've been saying for years). They have the same failings as us regular folks, and sometimes more because of their pressure-to-perform environment, the pressures of their peers, locked into their presuppositions, bowing to sacred cows of science and sometimes acting like herded cattle themselves.

A science reporter lists several reasons why scientists are about as trustworthy as bankers.

The Science and Technology Editor at The Conversation, Akshat Rathi, should know about scientists. Not only does he hold that prestigious editorial position, he has a PhD in organic chemistry from Oxford University as well as a Bachelor of Technology in chemical engineering from the Institute of Chemical Technology in Mumbai. Rathi doesn’t trust the opinions of scientists to be right any more than he trusts other fallible professionals, judging from his latest column on The Conversation, entitled, “Scientists falter as much as bankers in pursuit of answers.” He also has help from a Nature article that found serious flaws in that paean of scientific reliability, peer review:

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Is there an echo in here? Clinton Richard Dawkins says that teaching creation science to children is child abuse. Bill Nye the Propaganda Guy spouts off prejudicial conjecture about how people who disbelieve in evolution are harming science. Neil deGrasse Tyson uses his status to spread untruths about the same kind of thing. All three of them are guilty of conflating "science" with "evolution", and speaking falsehoods about the importance of a "proper" belief in origins (that is, evolutionism) for the progress of real science. None of them really understand the nature of science. It all comes down to faulty presuppositions making a failed worldview.

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, in an interview posted on National Geographic’s website on June 6, wants to “fix” adults he considers “scientifically illiterate.” His 13-part series Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey claims its aim is to promote science literacy, but by this phrase and the content of many of his episodes, it is clear that Tyson’s concern is to expunge the influence of young-earth creationists on the minds and hearts of people.Tyson warns of the danger of religious influence1 on science. He says it will create “a generation of people who will not understand what science is.” And “they will be intellectually crippled” (emphasis his) in their ability to contribute as innovators in science and technology. Tyson’s message complements Bill Nye’s viral video exhorting parents to refrain from teaching a biblical view of origins to children lest they imperil the economic and technological future of our country. Tyson says, “The real problem in society is not whether we’re teaching our kids enough science because, let’s say we started that tomorrow, does that mean everything’s okay? . . . For me the real challenge and the real problem are scientifically illiterate adults. . . . Let’s fix the adults; then the kids’ll be fine!”

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Peat bogs are given a dire image from movies, television and literature. Sure, wetlands can be dangerous places to walk, so you need to know what you're doing. But they are also interesting places for historians and archaeologists. People, plants, various creatures and thousands of lawyers reside there. The peat itself is useful in many ways.

freeimages/ColinBroug

But how old are they? Some scientists will refer to peat bogs as evidence that the Bible is wrong and that the earth is old. This is done through assumptions and flawed dating methods, the worst of which is picking a sample of the deposition that fits their worldview and ignoring other data. Uniformitarian dating methods are highly misleading. Indeed, other data indicates more rapid deposition, and is in keeping with archaeological evidence.

But scientists who believe that the book of Genesis is history, not myth, understand from the Bible that the global Flood occurred about 4,500 years ago. Peat bogs of today should therefore be around this age, or younger. So does the evidence from the peat really support the secularists’ older age, or does it indicate a younger age in accordance with the biblical timeline?

Monday, June 16, 2014

“If you insist on teaching your children false-hoods—that the Earth is flat, that "Man" is not a product of evolution by natural selection—then you must expect, at the very least, that those of us who have freedom of speech will feel free to describe your teachings as the spreading of falsehoods, and will attempt to demonstrate this to your children at our earliest opportunity. Our future well-being—the well-being of all of us on the planet—depends on the education of our descendants.”

― Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life

Darwin's Drones are constantly increasing their efforts to get people to believe in materialistic evolution. Perhaps they are upset that America, which makes significant contributions to the world in science and technology, still has a significant number of the population rejecting godless evolutionism. Some atheists make the absurd faith-based assertion (wishful thinking, really) that all creatures, including children, are born atheist.

The original Tweet to which this was a reply has been long deleted.

The "children are born atheist" assertion has met with some trouble. But like any totalitarian dictatorship knows, obedience begins with replacing parental rights, God-given values and dignity with their own views through propaganda.

The Wall Street Journal praised psychological research on kindergarteners that demonstrates how a picture-rich storybook could replace children’s intuitive inferences of design with Darwinian natural selection. Is this a good way to apply child psychology?Boston University psychologist Deborah Kelemen has led the latest National Science Foundation funded research to help teach evolution. Her technical report appears in the journal Psychological Science. The aim of her research was to intentionally “suppress” children’s “commonsense ways,” and to “explain why animals have functional traits and show signs of apparent design.”

Friday, June 13, 2014

Release the Kraken! Anyone for calamari? Well, you can have my portion. However, when it comes to the giant squid, I guess they're not good eats, so stay with the smaller varieties for that. Let the sperm whales dine on them. Giant squids have been elusive (partly because of where they live, deep in the ocean, for which they are well designed) and considered the stuff of fanciful legends because of evolutionary presuppositions. Except for the unlikeliness of them attacking ships at sea, recurring legends like this often have a basis in fact. Creatures did grow larger long ago, and we have not explored all that much of the ocean, really, so it should not be such a surprise that giant squids have been found. What else is down there, I wonder?

Tales abound around the world of the existence of awesome creatures and events. For instance, the hundreds of stories of a global Flood, with amazing parallels to the original in Genesis, give strong support to the truth of the Bible’s real history of the universe. It is also easy to see the widespread stories of dragons and huge sea serpents as having a basis in fact, in the light of reconstructions of certain dinosaurs and marine monsters such as the Kronosaurus, now found only as fossils.But such connections make little sense to someone viewing the evidence through the ‘interpretive lenses’ of our present culture. They would insist that such creatures died out millions of years before the first person appeared, a position favoured even by many who would claim to be opposed to evolution.

You know that geologic column that is presented in textbooks where the simplest life forms are at the bottom and the more complex life forms are at the top? It does not exist in the real world. The truth is, the thing is fouled up beyond all recognition. Using uniformitarian and evolutionary assumptions (as well as a generous dose of circular reasoning regarding "index fossils" that supposedly indicate the age of the layers), the orderly progression is presented as fact. It fools many people who believed their teachers who, in turn, believed their teachers. Many people will assert that the fossil record proves evolution, but that is not the case because many fossils are in the "wrong" place, so their assertions are based on misguided faith, not on actual scientific evidence. The best explanation is the global cataclysm of Noah's Flood as presented in biblical creation models.

During a recent televised debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, Mr. Nye claimed that fossils are never found “out of place.” If by this he means they are never found outside of the rock strata that define the supposed age in which the fossilized creatures lived, he’s wrong. He then challenged viewers to find one single contrary instance anywhere in the world. That’s easy.The fossil record is not nearly as evolutionary as Mr. Nye would have us believe. It features fossils mixed in myriad strange combinations. For example, clam kinds occur all throughout Earth’s sedimentary layers, frequently mixed with dinosaurs, and the fossil clams look like today’s clams.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Although there has been a variety of canines, both wild and domesticated, for many years, selective breeding has provided more and more breeds in recent years. It seems that they have been companions for humans for most of history, being companions, hunters, protectors, lap warmers and so on. A great variety, but also with some startling similarities all the way down to the genetic level.

Dogs In Landscape - Setters and Pointer, George Morland, 1792

Personally, I am more of a cat person. So before I let this finish going to the dogs...

Yeah, I made a funny. Anyway, I've noticed that the house cat has some things in common with the great cats. A tiger lays on its back, a jaguar purrs and so on. Little cats act like their big cousins, and vice versa.Here's a picture of our Basement Cat pretending to be a stuffed animal:

"One of these things is not like the other..." No, that picture doesn't help anything. I just wanted to show it to you.Back to the topic at hand. While there are many varieties of cats, there are many more varieties of dogs. And dogs are probably easier to study.Proponents of evolution have tried to explain the variations by invoking natural selection. That does not explain much, especially when it comes to behavior modifications. Instead, the explanation lies in genetics traced back to the original dog kind. The Creator had all this in mind when he programmed their genes.

The American hairless terrier is one of the newest official dog
breeds, recognized by the United Kennel Club in 2004. Just in time, too.
Allergies have reached epidemic proportions, forcing many sufferers
to miss out on one of life’s basic pleasures. Now an adorable dog is
available for them, too—the perfect lap size and no shedding. These
dogs’ natural intelligence and calm temperament make them excellent
companions. They are also curious, active, courageous, and playful.
Humans had a need, and presto, we could breed a dog to meet those needs.
Just coincidence?

Centuries ago, English breeders saw another need—a massive dog that
could guard, do search and rescue, and assist police work. So the
English mastiff was born. It is, in fact, the heaviest breed on record,
tipping the scales at 343 pounds (156 kg). These gentle giants have an
amiable nature. They love families and desire to please.

Biologists are puzzled how tiny genetic changes can
produce so many dog varieties in such a short time.

How could any two animals be more different? And these are just two of the 500 dog breeds around the world!

Even more amazing, the vast majority of these breeds are fewer than
500 years old. Indeed, most are fewer than 150 years old. Biologists are
puzzled about how tiny genetic changes can produce so many
dog varieties in such a short time. As a matter of fact, no other mammal has the same range of variation.

How could these diverse suites of traits appear so quickly, rather
than by slow, chance processes over thousands of generations? The only
reasonable explanation for such complex, elegant, preprogrammed
genetic systems is that they were designed that way.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Evolutionary presuppositions seem to be like angry snakes because they keep biting their handlers over and over. Evolutionary anthropologists and paleontologists assume that evolution is true, that the earth is billions of years old, that ancient humans were stupid brutes &c. The more they learn about ancient humans, the more they realize that not only were they fully human and not some silly semi-simians (interbreeding is a strong indication of this fact), and they had greater capabilities (such as advanced cave painting skills) than they were expected to have.

1907(?), PD

Yet again, evolutionists are startled by discoveries. Early humans used spears and showed signs of culture. If they would drop their failed presuppositions and use the biblical timeline, they would come to vastly different (and much more realistic) conclusions that do not need constant revision to be force-fit into their timelines.

Researcher says, “It just goes to show that the easiest way to be wrong in paleoanthropology is to underestimate our ancestors’ abilities.”
Back 300,000 years ago in the human evolution timeline, our ancestors were supposed to be too brutish to organize, plan, and hunt with sophisticated tools. That all changed in 1995 when archaeologists began excavating remains near a lignite mine east of Hanover, Germany, called the Schöningen site. “I didn’t believe it at first,” one archaeologist said, when he was told spear points dating back 400,000 years were found there. Although the dates were later revised downward to 300,000 years, that’s still too early for early humans to have exhibited the technology coming to light with ongoing research, Michael Balter reports in Science Magazine. Feel the power of falling paradigms:

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

"Ow!", he cried out into the uncaring darkness of the living room."What happened?", she asked, almost concerned."You left out a number six and I tripped over it. Can't you put those things away when you're through with them?"What a stupid concept. Numerals are not tangible objects that can be tripped over or skipped across a pond. If you write the number "6" on a chalkboard, you have a representation of the numeral six, not "sixness" itself. If you erase that number from the chalkboard, the numeral of six continues to exist. Laws of logic are also intangible. You cannot put the law of identity in your pocket. You can type it out and then delete what you typed, but deleting your physical representation of the law does not cause it to cease to exist.Atheists and evolutionists are generally materialistic in their presuppositions. That is, they claim that the only reality is the material world, those things perceived by the senses or can be examined through the scientific method. They also use mathematics and logic, and this shows that their worldview is fundamentally flawed. (Many of their claims are immediately self-refuting, such as, "The only real knowledge that exists comes from scientific examination". How does the claimant know that? Through what scientific method did he or she arrive at that truth claim?) Mathematics could not possibly have evolved, either.

Materialists use logic and mathematics, which are intangible in nature. In fact, some branches of mathematics rely on imaginary numbers (try asking your calculator for the square root of negative one)! Materialists cannot account for these transcendental concepts, but they are a part of the biblical creationist worldview. The greatest irony is that they cannot account for knowledge itself apart from God, and have to rely on our worldview in order to argue against God and creation!On Real Science Radio, Bob Enyart discusses the transcendental concept of mathematics and how genius can be achieved on the back of an envelope. The audio of the broadcast (free download or streaming audio) as well as the extensive notes can be found here.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, June 9, 2014

In their desperate attempts to explain the origins of the universe, living things, life itself and so on without God, secularists get hasty in their pronouncements. Once the latest great thing is proclaimed, the Evo Sith ridicule creationists by posting links — and embarrass themselves because they were arrogant too soon. In this case, the "smoking gun" proof of the Big Bang (a series of conjectures without substance) and "inflation" was in dispute a short time after it was announced is receiving further criticism.

Now scientists are saying that this "proof" is possibly nothing but dust. The scientists who thought they had proof of the Big Bang inflation disregarded this consideration, and may be regretting it. A word of caution to creationists who are alarmed at scientific findings: don't be. Just wait a while. Besides, our faith is not based on the latest whims of science, but on the unchanging Word of God.

In March 2014, a team of radio astronomers using the BICEP2 telescope announced purported direct evidence for inflation, an important part of the Big Bang model. But only two months after this “discovery” a number of secular scientists have become increasingly skeptical.The original Big Bang model had a number of serious problems, including its own version of the starlight and time problem. In order to rescue the Big Bang from these difficulties, secular scientists proposed inflation as an ad hoc tack on to the original model. Originally, inflation was said to be an extremely rapid but very short-lived growth spurt that occurred early in the history of the universe. However, more recent ideas about inflation are radically different from those earlier versions of inflation theory.

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Butterfly flight is an intricate process. It entails very quick, precise motion with minute muscular control. Everything for the complex and precise process of flight must be in place at the same time, or else nothing works, nothing makes sense. Yet, Darwin's Cheerleaders want us to believe that it was through time, chance, natural selection and so forth.

"Butterflies", Odilon Redon, 1910

It looks like they simply flap their wings. In fact, the rapid process is simply too fast for us to see; there is really quite a bit going on.

Butterflies have never ceased to dazzle and amaze mankind with their colours,1 patterns, and just as importantly, their incredible flying abilities.2 The earliest recorded paintings of these beautiful creatures were found on the 3000-year-old3 tomb walls of an Egyptian named Nebamun, an “accountant of grain” ... during the reigns of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III. The surviving fresco containing the butterflies can be seen at the British Museum in London (right). These large butterflies are thought to be Danaus chrysippus aegyptus; as common in the Nile valley today as they were back then. Did Nebamun ever wonder how such beautiful creatures could fly so effortlessly in his world of long ago? We may never know. But his tomb at least suggests he was captivated by butterflies, as I certainly am.

Friday, June 6, 2014

Once again, the more we learn, the more we realize that we do not know so much after all, and there is much more to learn. In this case, life "out there" in space. Evolutionary cosmogonists, cosmologists and astronomers have been playing the odds, assuming that of all the stars in the universe, many must have habitable words — we got one, didn't we? Plugging into the presuppositions that life evolved here, and it must have evolved on those other words, and there are exoplanets out there, that settles it.No, it doesn't.

Although planets may exist in the habitable zone, there are other problems to overcome for them to be able to support life. There are new problems being ascertained as well, including planets that should not even exist according to evolutionary schemes (but are not a problem for biblical creationists), such as giant Earth-like planets and maybe planets made entirely out of diamond.

Then there are the problems of being close enough to a planet to be the right temperature, but the weather up there is frightful. The habitable zone can also be the danger zone. Oh, boy. Still unlikely to give credence to the "science" of astrobiology, isn't it?

Harsh “space weather” around dim red dwarf stars may make planets uninhabitable. “Godzilla Earths” may not fare much better.“Life in the universe might be even rarer than we thought,” begins a Harvard press release. That’s because the weather on most planets is awful: